The Anti-NGO Law (“Ley Garrote”) at the UPR: When Local Advocacy Meets International Advocacy

On December 16, 2025, TEDIC, as part of the Human Rights Coordinating Body of Paraguay (Codehupy), joined a group of social organizations to formally file, before the Palace of Justice, an Unconstitutionality Action against Law No. 7363/24, popularly known as the “Ley Garrote” (“Cudgel Law”) or “anti-NGO law.” The action challenges the fact that the law establishes excessive state control over the formation, operation, and financing of social organizations, enabling a regime of permanent suspicion and disproportionate sanctions. It further argues that the law violates the right to free association and political participation, pillars of a participatory democracy. In total, some 33 social and community organizations drove that first filing before the Supreme Court of Justice, and months later, in July 2026, five more organizations joined a second filing, reaffirming civil society’s rejection of a law that, they argue, restricts the exercise of civic freedoms in the country. Codehupy filed an Unconstitutionality Action against the Ley Garrote together with 32 civil society organizations.

That legal action didn’t come out of nowhere, it’s the culmination of all the work Paraguayan organizations did in denouncing the law and its purposes. This 2014 article systematized concerns about Law No. 7363/24 for its broad and ambiguous language, which could enable excessive control over organizations and threaten their independence and freedom to operate, in a pattern that many organizations compared to what has happened in other countries in the region and around the world.

What we want to share in this blog is how that same complaint, Paraguayan courts on one side, the United Nations on the other, became a single advocacy strategy: an unconstitutionality action in Asunción, and a report to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva.

The “Ley Garrote” (Anti-NGO Law) Throughout Our UPR Reports, 2025–2026

The UPR is the UN Human Rights Council mechanism that reviews the human rights situation of all 193 member states every four and a half years. In 2025, the organizations that submitted the shadow report to the UPR included concerns about Law No. 7363/24 and its regulations as risks to civic participation and the closing of civic space in Paraguay.

Our organization included this issue in the three reports it submitted to the UPR, together with the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), ARTICLE 19, and Derechos Digitales. The report synthesizes concerns about the intersection of human rights and technology in Paraguay, and notes, first and foremost, a deterioration of the environment for civil society and fundamental freedoms, pointing in particular to the restriction of civic space through Law No. 7363/24. The report describes this law as ambiguous and punitive, with excessive controls that threaten the autonomy of organizations, in a context of attacks and disinformation against entities such as our own.

That written work was only the first stage: between February 9 and 13, 2026, TEDIC took part in the pre-sessions of Paraguay’s UPR in Geneva, a key space to present the main human rights concerns and recommendations regarding the digital environment to UN member states. Our executive director, Maricarmen Sequera, presented the findings on state surveillance, lack of transparency, gaps in data protection, and the risks that the Ley Garrote poses to civic space. In addition to the official presentation, we held bilateral meetings with various diplomatic delegations to go deeper into the priority issues and promote concrete recommendations that could be incorporated into this UPR cycle, seeking to ensure that the digital rights and civic space agenda would arrive with force in the room where States would examine Paraguay.

On May 6, 2026, Paraguay was reviewed at the 52nd session of the UPR Working Group, and received statements from 85 delegations, one of the highest levels of participation in that session. Among the themes that concentrated the most recommendations were the autonomy of the Ombudsman’s Office, a comprehensive anti-discrimination law, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, women, and children, and access to justice.

What the State “Takes Note Of”: Accepting the Criticism Without Committing to Address It

In UPR language, there are two possible responses to each recommendation: “accept” (the State commits to implementing it) or “note” (the State acknowledges the recommendation but does not commit to fulfilling it). The fact that Paraguay “noted” a recommendation is not a minor technicality: in practice, it means telling the international community that it will not adopt it.

We put together a thorough summary of document A/HRC/63/8, where States made recommendations to Paraguay in this cycle regarding the Ley Garrote and where our country only took note, meaning it did not commit to fulfilling, a particularly sensitive set of recommendations for the work we have been carrying out.

During the session, some States already flagged this issue in their statements:

• Germany (para. 19): “Expressed concern about restrictions on civic space, corruption, limited judicial independence, and challenges related to the rule of law and the protection of vulnerable groups.”
• Ireland (para. 27): “Regretted the attacks, reprisals, and aggressions against human rights defenders. It also regretted that the Law on the Protection of Journalists and Human Rights Defenders had not yet been adopted…”
• United Kingdom (para. 72): acknowledged progress on transparency, but “noted that challenges persisted regarding civic space, non-discrimination, and access to essential services for vulnerable groups.”
• Albania (para. 76): “Expressed concern about the law on non-governmental organizations and the law on journalists and human rights defenders, about the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and about prison overcrowding.”
• Canada (para. 93): commended the SIMORE Plus system, but “remained deeply concerned about the shrinking of civic space and the increased regulatory pressure on journalists and civil society.”

And, on the other side, the Paraguayan delegation explicitly defended itself:

• Paraguay (para. 44): “The delegation emphasized that the new law regulating non-profit organizations did not restrict freedom of association, but rather improved transparency.”

2. Formal Recommendations on Law 7363 / Ley Garrote (109.86 to 109.93)

This is the block that directly addresses the law we are challenging in court:

3. Formal Recommendations on Civic Space in the Broader Sense (109.71 to 109.85)

These don’t cite Law 7363 by number, but they belong to the same thematic axis — protection of journalists, human rights defenders, freedom of association and expression — and are usually read together with the block above in civic space analyses:

• 109.71 (France) – Establish an effective protection mechanism for human rights defenders.
• 109.72 (Spain) – Adopt a comprehensive law to protect journalists and human rights defenders.
• 109.73 (France) – Guarantee freedom of the press, putting an end to restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly.
• 109.74 (United Kingdom) – Review legislation and administrative practices so that journalists, defenders, and civil society can act free from intimidation.
• 109.75 (Albania) – Repeal the law on non-profit organizations and adopt the law on the protection of journalists and human rights defenders.
• 109.76 (Romania) – Adopt, improve, and implement legislation to protect defenders and journalists.
• 109.77 (Netherlands) – Adopt the draft Law on the Protection of Journalists and Human Rights Defenders.
• 109.78 (Czechia) – Finalize and adopt that draft law, with an effective and independent protection mechanism.
• 109.79 (Ireland) – Adopt it as a priority.
• 109.80 (Belgium) – Adopt a law protecting journalists/defenders against threats, violence, and intimidation.
• 109.81 (Marshall Islands) – Develop a comprehensive protection policy to prevent and investigate attacks.
• 109.82 (Switzerland) – Guarantee freedom of association, dialogue, and active participation of all human rights civil society organizations.
• 109.83 (Poland) – Redouble efforts to protect defenders and create a safe environment.
• 109.84 (Italy) – Prompt investigation and prosecution of those responsible for attacks against journalists/defenders.
• 109.85 (Cuba) – Urgent measures against harassment, intimidation, and attacks on peasant leaders, environmental defenders, Indigenous Peoples, and journalists.

Why This Matters to Us, Even If the State “Only Takes Note”

One might think that if Paraguay didn’t accept these recommendations, the international advocacy work had no effect. We believe it’s exactly the opposite: the fact that 25 recommendations, made by States that independently analyzed the situation in Paraguay, coincide almost point by point with what our organizations have been arguing in national courts confirms something central, this isn’t a biased reading by a handful of organizations, but a pattern of backsliding in civic space that the international community also identifies and documents.

This is precisely the value of working in a coordinated way: the unconstitutionality action filed before the Supreme Court and the report submitted to the United Nations are not two separate fronts, they are the same complaint, backed by the same evidence, spoken in two different institutional languages. When the Paraguayan State has to simultaneously answer a domestic legal challenge and an international review on the same issue, the political cost of keeping the law unchanged goes up. And even though today’s official response is “we take note,” those recommendations remain on record, dated and backed by other States, in a United Nations document that Paraguay will have to answer for again in the next UPR cycle.

Our organizations’ capacity to advocate internationally doesn’t replace the domestic legal fight, it reinforces it. We will keep documenting, keep litigating, and keep bringing this agenda to every international space we can, because the goal isn’t for the State to take note, it’s for the State to finally commit.